Well I noticed that for some reason somebody else brought that up. As far as I know its the person donating to local PBS affiliate or Local NPR affiliates doing that and the member outlets can do whatever they like with the local funds though as long it meets the non-commercial/Public Media criteria for the local outlet. And like you mention CPB is mainly a middleman for the stations for funding.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's Official, Trump proposes to zero-out CPB budget
- Thread starter FreddyE1977
- Start date
Well I noticed that for some reason somebody else brought that up. As far as I know its the person donating to local PBS affiliate or Local NPR affiliates doing that and the member outlets can do whatever they like with the local funds though as long it meets the non-commercial/Public Media criteria for the local outlet. And like you mention CPB is mainly a middleman for the stations for funding.
CPB is mainly a middleman for the stations for funding.
However, what the president's budget is doing is eliminating the $455 million that goes to CPB to distribute to the stations. So while the line item is for CPB, the money goes to the local stations. Which is why Congress votes for it. And as I said, the two year funding bill that Congress approved last week and the president signed covers those already-approved appropriations.
The budget process will supersede that when executed. Further, there's been no appropriation for CPB for this or the next budget year yet. It was included in the CR, but unless there is a specific appropriation for CPB, there is another CR or an Omnibus funding action covering multiple departments in which CPB is included, they will not be funded.
The budget process will supersede that when executed. Further, there's been no appropriation for CPB for this or the next budget year yet. It was included in the CR, but unless there is a specific appropriation for CPB, there is another CR or an Omnibus funding action covering multiple departments in which CPB is included, they will not be funded.
This is not true. By statute, CPB is advance funded by two years. The 2019 appropriation of $445 million was made last year, and the 2020 appropriation for the same amount was in the fiscal 2018 bill, which in the CR and was approved last week. The white house was told that they should not release their budget on Monday because it would be irrelevant, and they did so anyway. It really didn't matter since Congress has ignored presidential budgets for years.
Here is a link to the 2018 bill, and you'll see the 2020 appropriation is included, along with a lot of other spending that the white house didn't want:
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394995
I think you are making my case for me then. The people in "blue" states who watch PBS and support it would continue to fund their local stations and they would continue. The people in "red" states who did not watch it (and in some cases were alienated by it) would not support them and they'd go away. People in "red" states who don't watch it would not be forced to subsidize it for the benefit of people in "blue" states.
In any event I think public broadcasting would be a very, very low priority to those 27 "red" state governors. They are going to be concerned with public education, road maintenance, maintaining corrections systems, public health, etc. I don't think they are going to feel "screwed" if a few TV and radio stations went away.
In the case of my own local PBS station (WQED), they would probably be doing just fine financially were it not for a couple of decades of management malfeasance and very poor decisions (paying top managers exorbitant salaries, branching out into ill-advised side ventures like magazines and West Coast film production, etc.) As a result of that they have been forced to cook the dog for dinner. They sold off one television station (now WINP), are about to neuter the OTA signal of their other station (they are dropping down to VHF 2 as a result of the spectrum auction), and much of what they run on that looks like an infomercial channel hawking books and videos.
I can tell you from living here that there are more than enough people locally to support WQED had the prior management made sound decisions with their money.
Of course people who get funding from the government NEVER make sound financial decisions, because they think they can always count on a few more bags of money falling out of the sky from Washington, D.C.
In any event I think public broadcasting would be a very, very low priority to those 27 "red" state governors. They are going to be concerned with public education, road maintenance, maintaining corrections systems, public health, etc. I don't think they are going to feel "screwed" if a few TV and radio stations went away.
In the case of my own local PBS station (WQED), they would probably be doing just fine financially were it not for a couple of decades of management malfeasance and very poor decisions (paying top managers exorbitant salaries, branching out into ill-advised side ventures like magazines and West Coast film production, etc.) As a result of that they have been forced to cook the dog for dinner. They sold off one television station (now WINP), are about to neuter the OTA signal of their other station (they are dropping down to VHF 2 as a result of the spectrum auction), and much of what they run on that looks like an infomercial channel hawking books and videos.
I can tell you from living here that there are more than enough people locally to support WQED had the prior management made sound decisions with their money.
Of course people who get funding from the government NEVER make sound financial decisions, because they think they can always count on a few more bags of money falling out of the sky from Washington, D.C.
Last edited:
The people in "red" states who did not watch it (and in some cases were alienated by it) would not support them and they'd go away. People in "red" states who don't watch it would not be forced to subsidize it for the benefit of people in "blue" states.
It's the other way around. People in blue states pay out more than they get back. People in rural areas and small states need public radio more because commercial radio in their areas are typically automated or non-existent. This is why their state governments have funded them. The state governments are already paying much more for these stations than they receive from CPB. The federal money is just to help with a portion of the service they provide. As I've said, if people in those states didn't listen, their state governments wouldn't spend the money on those stations. It's nice to have opinions, but why not actually do some study and learn more about public broadcasting before you blow it up? If you learned more, you'd find out that the CPB money is matching money. The stations are required to raise a lot more than they receive.
Contrary to what you believe, these stations are BIG priorities for these governors, because it gives them an opportunity to reach their constituents directly, in ways the commercial stations don't. Why not let the governors of these states decide how to spend their money? Don't you trust that they know what their people want? Isn't the Republican idea to give the power back to the states?
Why is it assumed that people in red states are alienated by public TV? Are quality drama, comedy, documentaries music and children's programming as alien to the heartland lifestyle as liberal politics? Isn't it possible that significant numbers of people in Michigan, Kansas, Alabama, West Virginia, etc., watch their local PBS station for the Metropolitan Opera or Nova or Masterpiece Theater or even Austin City Limits while ignoring the current affairs programming they perceive as having a left-wing bias? I am just amazed by the level of anti-PBS/CPB hate discussions like this invariably give rise to.
Why is it assumed that people in red states are alienated by public TV?
I agree. They really aren't, and as I've said, the governors of these states oversee their local public broadcasting authorities. If they felt their content was politically biased in any way, we'd be hearing about them canceling certain shows. We don't. There's nothing political about Antiques Roadshow on the PBS side, or What, Wait Don't Tell Me on the radio side. What I'm seeing is there is a growing interest, primarily among older radio listeners, for talk programming that deals with subjects other than national politics. Right now, the only subject being covered on most commercial news/talk stations is national politics. No one is talking about anything else. However, when you listen to NPR, you hear lots of other subjects, and the scope is far more international. It's less about politics, and more about lifestyle.
If the stations are providing a need that is desired, then those using the service will fund it, simple as that. To presume that a blanket subsidy is appropriate is simply wrong. Some stations serve a purpose, others are simply a drain. Time to make these stations self sufficient. It's not as if they provide something worthy of subsidization like public transit. I mean, PBS allowed the hack Gwen Ifill to be on the air for years after it was clear to everyone she was pushing a politicized agenda. Hardly appropriate for taxpayer funded broadcasting.
If the stations are providing a need that is desired, then those using the service will fund it, simple as that. To presume that a blanket subsidy is appropriate is simply wrong. Some stations serve a purpose, others are simply a drain. Time to make these stations self sufficient. It's not as if they provide something worthy of subsidization like public transit. I mean, PBS allowed the hack Gwen Ifill to be on the air for years after it was clear to everyone she was pushing a politicized agenda. Hardly appropriate for taxpayer funded broadcasting.
The arts, virtually ignored by commercial TV, aren't worthy of subsidization? How short-fingered vulgarian of you.
If the stations are providing a need that is desired, then those using the service will fund it, simple as that. To presume that a blanket subsidy is appropriate is simply wrong.
That's how the law was written. Read the law. You feel the law is wrong? Repeal. Otherwise, follow the law. The states expect the federal government to follow the law. Otherwise, we just have anarchy.
It's not actually a "blanket subsidy." It provides matching funds. The stations must reach a certain number on their own, and the feds match.
That's not correct. The law is written contingent on there being a corresponding appropriation approved. There is nothing compelling Congress to appropriate anything.
And yet for many years the Republican Congress has continued the appropriation.
Here is the opening section of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Read it carefully, especially point #7.
The Congress hereby finds and declares that—
(1)it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes;
(2)it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of nonbroadcast telecommunications technologies for the delivery of public telecommunications services;
(3)expansion and development of public telecommunications and of diversity of its programming depend on freedom, imagination, and initiative on both local and national levels;
(4)the encouragement and support of public telecommunications, while matters of importance for private and local development, are also of appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government;
(5)it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation;
(6)it is in the public interest to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities;
(7)it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States;
(8)public television and radio stations and public telecommunications services constitute valuable local community resources for utilizing electronic media to address national concerns and solve local problems through community programs and outreach programs;
(9)it is in the public interest for the Federal Government to ensure that all citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications services through all appropriate available telecommunications distribution technologies; and
(10)a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.
The Congress hereby finds and declares that—
(1)it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes;
(2)it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of nonbroadcast telecommunications technologies for the delivery of public telecommunications services;
(3)expansion and development of public telecommunications and of diversity of its programming depend on freedom, imagination, and initiative on both local and national levels;
(4)the encouragement and support of public telecommunications, while matters of importance for private and local development, are also of appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government;
(5)it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation;
(6)it is in the public interest to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities;
(7)it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States;
(8)public television and radio stations and public telecommunications services constitute valuable local community resources for utilizing electronic media to address national concerns and solve local problems through community programs and outreach programs;
(9)it is in the public interest for the Federal Government to ensure that all citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications services through all appropriate available telecommunications distribution technologies; and
(10)a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.
Long discussed and predicted, President Trump has formally made a budget proposal that would
phase out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) over a two-year period.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr
This may or may not actually happen as there are many steps in the process that have to be navigated between here and there.
A note to our host: I am NOT trying to provoke a political debate. This is a subject where I know
a lot of you are sincerely interested, and one of a handful of issues where the topics of the board
and politics are inseparable.
I wouldn't worry too much about this...Trump and family may well be in prison before any such cuts are made.
I live in Manhattan, we've know of this character's criminal activities for over 20 years.
Check these reports:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ing-headquarted-trump-tower-article-1.3004226
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-drugs-corruption-panama-hotel-money-laundering-714891
These are exactly the things the Mueller investigation is gathering evidence on.
Do a little research. If you still believe in this character, you are too stupid to bother with.
LCG
I wouldn't worry too much about this...Trump and family may well be in prison before any such cuts are made.
I live in Manhattan, we've know of this character's criminal activities for over 20 years.
Check these reports:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ing-headquarted-trump-tower-article-1.3004226
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-drugs-corruption-panama-hotel-money-laundering-714891
These are exactly the things the Mueller investigation is gathering evidence on.
Do a little research. If you still believe in this character, you are too stupid to bother with.
LCG
I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
To do so would just compel our host to bring down the No Politics hammer and shut down this thread.
And we are having a lively on-topic debate here.
And we are having a lively on-topic debate here.
I agree, and the discussion has nothing to do with the president, who has no constitutional role in appropriating money.
The Congress, particularly the House appropriations committee knows the law, and they will follow it as they always have.
If you look at the members of the Committee and the states they represent, its easy to see why this appropriation is always made.
It's not about party or politics, but rather the states.
People in rural areas and small states need public radio more because commercial radio in their areas are typically automated or non-existent.
I have lived in rural areas in the Midwest. My neighbors for the most part were much bigger right-wingers than I am. Very few of them listened to NPR, I assure you. The audience for NPR is overwhelmingly urban (80%+ I would presume). If they had a rural audience they would be running a daily farm report and things that sound like Paul Harvey.
Why not let the governors of these states decide how to spend their money? Don't you trust that they know what their people want? Isn't the Republican idea to give the power back to the states?
It's not their money, it's Federal money (meaning by extension it was taken away from people in other states). I never raised any objection to a state government funding public broadcasting if it chooses to.
Last edited:
I have lived in rural areas in the Midwest. My neighbors for the most part were much bigger right-wingers than I am.
Once again this is not about politics. NPR doesn't do political talk. There is no local radio in a lot of those places. It's usually automated music or national conservative political talk. If you want something else, the only alternative is public radio. And yes, if you listen to public radio, they do a daily farm report. Some of them are tied in with the local college, and that's how it gets done.
If you read post #34, it says that public radio is supposed to be an alternative source, and to address the needs of unserved and underserved audiences. It lays it out pretty clearly why the federal government should be involved as a support system. The states can't do it on their own. Just as they can't do health care or education on their own. It's all part of a system. As I said, the people in the most populous states are paying for the people in smaller, poorer states. This has all been thought out, and Congress understands it very well. That's why they've already appropriated the money.
I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
To do so would just compel our host to bring down the No Politics hammer and shut down this thread.
And we are having a lively on-topic debate here.
Please, save the sanctimony. "Public" media and arts have been the whipping boy for every goddamn demagogue since Nixon.
There is no way of divorcing the issue of 'defunding" these institutions from politics --especially when you title the discussion "It's official".
Any intelligent person reading those two links and others readily available will understand what is going on..it is called "diversion".
LCG
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.